Additional sources / bundled?

[Brendan Jones]

Hi

I have a couple of packages that I'm porting from the CCRMA repo. A 
couple of them list some additional sources that contain only content 
(ie a PDF or audio presets / no binaries). Do I still have to create 
separate SPECS for these files? Some are also unversioned.

regards,

Brendan

[Rex Dieter]

On 02/10/2012 11:03 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:

>  I have a couple of packages that I'm porting from the CCRMA repo.
> A
>  couple of them list some additional sources that contain only content
>  (ie a PDF or audio presets / no binaries). Do I still have to create
>  separate SPECS for these files? 
Not necessarily.  stuff like documentation or customized configurations 
make sense to *not* package separately.

-- rex

[Jon Ciesla]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; wrote:
>  On 02/10/2012 11:03 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>
> > I have a couple of packages that I'm porting from the CCRMA repo. A
> > couple of them list some additional sources that contain only content
> > (ie a PDF or audio presets / no binaries). Do I still have to create
> > separate SPECS for these files?
>
>
>  Not necessarily.  stuff like documentation or customized configurations make
>  sense to *not* package separately. 
Though you want to make a subpackage for docs if they're huge.

-J

>  -- rex
>
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging 


-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:14:47AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>  On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Rex Dieter
> <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; wrote:
>  > On 02/10/2012 11:03 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>  >
>  >> I have a couple of packages that I'm porting from the CCRMA repo. A
>  >> couple of them list some additional sources that contain only content
>  >> (ie a PDF or audio presets / no binaries). Do I still have to create
>  >> separate SPECS for these files?
>  >
>  >
>  > Not necessarily.  stuff like documentation or customized configurations make
>  > sense to *not* package separately.
>  
>  Though you want to make a subpackage for docs if they're huge.
>   
If the docs are huge (or even just large ;-) *and* they release on
a slightly different timeframe than the programs, you likely want them in
a wholly separate package.  Otherwise end users end up updating one or the
other needlessly.

(ie: docs and programs packages installed.  Update just the program; end user
ends up having to update both packages since the build created new versions
of both.)

-Toshio

[Brendan Jones]

On 02/10/2012 07:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:14:47AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Rex Dieter<rdieter(a)math.unl.edu>  wrote:
> >> On 02/10/2012 11:03 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have a couple of packages that I'm porting from the CCRMA repo. A
> >>> couple of them list some additional sources that contain only content
> >>> (ie a PDF or audio presets / no binaries). Do I still have to create
> >>> separate SPECS for these files?
> >>
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.  stuff like documentation or customized configurations make
> >> sense to *not* package separately.
> >
> > Though you want to make a subpackage for docs if they're huge.
> >
>  If the docs are huge (or even just large ;-) *and* they release on
>  a slightly different timeframe than the programs, you likely want them in
>  a wholly separate package.  Otherwise end users end up updating one or the
>  other needlessly.
>
>  (ie: docs and programs packages installed.  Update just the program; end user
>  ends up having to update both packages since the build created new versions
>  of both.)
>
>  -Toshio
>
>
>
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging 
Thanks all, I believe in the cases I've come up against thus far no 
separate package is required as all are tiny. For conf files/default 
settings I should use %config(no-replace) right?

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>  On 02/10/2012 07:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:14:47AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Rex Dieter
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 02/10/2012 11:03 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have a couple of packages that I'm porting from the CCRMA repo. A
> >>>> couple of them list some additional sources that contain only content
> >>>> (ie a PDF or audio presets / no binaries). Do I still have to create
> >>>> separate SPECS for these files?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Not necessarily.  stuff like documentation or customized configurations
> >>> make
> >>> sense to *not* package separately.
> >>
> >>
> >> Though you want to make a subpackage for docs if they're huge.
> >>
> > If the docs are huge (or even just large ;-) *and* they release on
> > a slightly different timeframe than the programs, you likely want them in
> > a wholly separate package.  Otherwise end users end up updating one or the
> > other needlessly.
> >
> > (ie: docs and programs packages installed.  Update just the program; end
> > user
> > ends up having to update both packages since the build created new
> > versions
> > of both.)
> >
> > -Toshio
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > packaging mailing list
> > packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
>
>  Thanks all, I believe in the cases I've come up against thus far no separate
>  package is required as all are tiny. For conf files/default settings I
>  should use %config(no-replace) right?
>  
For files that go to /etc, yes, that is the default.

Meanwhile make sure there are no license issues with the extra sources
you are including. Sometimes documentation files have different
licenses, I even remember seeing non-free documentation that is for
free software.

Cheers,
Orcan